Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).

(R) Again, everything in your response is wrong . When you propose to become an authority and in fact promote scandal, you take on a very serious burden.(MB) I don't purport to be an "authority". I only research the facts as reported by those who *are* authorities and present them in my refutations. The only "scandal" being promoted here is the incredible notion that the Shroud of Turin is actually the burial shroud of Jesus. Even the Catholic Church no longer officially endorses that view although they still promote veneration of the Shroud as an "article of faith" for whatever purposes that might achieve.

(R) The studies performed have occured within the period 1990-1998. The STURP study was conducted in the period 1977-1979. The photographic evidence was established by both the leading JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) NASA Deep Space Photographic Team Leader (Don Lynn) and two of the (if not the leading) world authorities on photo spectral and photo spatial research (Barry Swortz and Kevin Moran). The forensic microbiologic research was performed by world renowned criminologist Dr. Max Frei.(MB) For those who may have forgotten, Dr. Max Frei gained his "world renown" as the "expert" who was duped into declaring that the forged "Hitler Diaries" were actually the genuine article. His "expertise" as pertains to Shroud research has been seriously questioned by several reports showing fraudulent and highly inaccurate sampling, testing and reporting procedures on Shroud samples. The other people you mention were members of the original STURP study who have been reprising their earlier discredited declarations.

(R) The carbon dating review and subsequent evidence has caused virtually every known dating for items with an organic composition to be redone and with complete conformity to now established priciples of organic layering. The original misconclusion as to the date of the Shroud is now discarded, along with erroneous dating for dozens of other museum artifacts, most of which have not religious but historic significance.(MB) This is totally incorrect. This "new data" comes from the aforementioned and disproven work of Dr. Frei. Since Dr. Frei died in 1983, it boggles the mind how any of his data can be portrayed as being "new evidence". It has also been shown that, in order to alter the carbon dating by 1300 years, the Shroud would have to contain microbial contamination equal to twice the weight of the Shroud itself. Therefore, any claim of incorrect dating is obviously absurd. The generally-accepted dating of the Shroud has not been changed or questioned. Furthermore, there's still the small matter of the confession of the forger of the Shroud which was delivered to Pope Clement VII. The dating of this confession matches the currently-accepted carbon dating of the Shroud.

(R) I could go on in detail about the absurdity of your claim that the Shroud was painted. Your misinformation is overwhelming. Hebrew University has discoved under its own research that the Shroud has got complete detail of flora that existed only during the period ending with A.D. 40.(MB) Once again, this is based upon Dr. Frei's erroneous data. The facts remain that the "blood" on the Shroud is actually red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. This has been confirmed by many tests performed independently by many laboratories and forensic experts. No trace of blood has ever been found. If there was actually any blood on the Shroud, it would be blackened instead of the bright red color which the paint exhibits.

(R) Until computer enhanced imaging techniques developed for other projects became available in late 1993, no one ( even under the most sophisticated and elaborate optics available anywhere in the world and certainly not in any prior century) could have known of their microbiological existance and is impossible to reproduce. There are over 275 such evidentiary determinations.(MB) Even the most sophisticated analysis techniques can't get good data from tainted samples. The evidence that the tested samples of Dr. Frei are either contaminated or fraudulent is extensive. Yet, this is, of course, never reported by those who have a vested interest in promoting the Shroud as being "authentic". These are the same people who earlier have promoted "findings" on the Shroud such as images of Roman coins (which had not yet been minted at the time that Jesus was supposed to have died) and claims that certain stains form the Latin and/or Greek words for "Jesus" and "Nazareth". Shroud supporters need to be more careful about their sources of information.

(R) Your other determinations about both Catholic positions, liturgy and history are even more aggreviously in error.(MB) Do you have any specific examples you'd like to cite or is this just a protest speech of general disagreement that can't be supported?

(R) What you should do is recognize, that like the Roman centurion whose blade pieced the side of Jesus and whose subsequent conversion and martyrdom is recorded, you are being called to honestly set aside your bias and enter into a serious review of the matters you besmirch.(MB) Where is this incident recorded? "In the Bible, of course." And, how do we know that it actually happened? "Because the Bible says so, of course." One doesn't have to be too well-versed in basic logic to see the circular reasoning fallacy being employed here.
What makes you think that I'm not being serious in what I write, that I'm being "called" in any way, shape, or form, or that I'm not being completely honest in my writings?

(R) Your passion is commendable, and if your would just back it up with enough of an effort to get the real facts, you might even make something useful out of this - like saving your eternal soul along with the others you seek to effect.(MB) By now, you should see that I have sufficient facts to back up what I write. Also, you will need to show that such a thing as a "soul" (eternal or otherwise) actually exists and that it can be "saved" before I can even begin to take that comment seriously. Remember not to beg any questions while attempting to do this.